This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Viswesvaran, C. Articles by Ones, D. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Meta-Analyses of Fakability Estimates: Implications for Personality Measurement

Florida International UniversityVish{at}servax.fiu.edu

Deniz S. Ones

University of Minnesota

The authors examined whether individuals can fake their responses to a personality inventory if instructed to do so. Between-subjects and within-subject designs were metaanalyzed separately. Across 51 studies, fakability did not vary by personality dimension; all the Big Five factors were equally fakable. Faking produced the largest distortions in social desirability scales. Instructions to fake good produced lower effect sizes compared with instructions to fake bad. Comparing meta-analytic results from within-subjects and between-subjects designs, we conclude, based on statistical and methodological considerations, that within-subjects designs produce more accurate estimates. Between-subjects designs may distort estimates due to Subject x Treatment interactions and low statistical power.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 59, No. 2, 197-210 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00131649921969802


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Borghans, A. L. Duckworth, J. J. Heckman, and B. t. Weel The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits J. Human Resources, October 1, 2008; 43(4): 972 - 1059. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Li and J. Bagger The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR): A Reliability Generalization Study Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2007; 67(3): 525 - 544. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Trafimow, I. K. Bromgard, K. A. Finlay, and T. Ketelaar The Role of Affect in Determining the Attributional Weight of Immoral Behaviors Pers Soc Psychol Bull, July 1, 2005; 31(7): 935 - 948. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. R. Hakstian and E.-L. Ng Employment-Related Motivational Distortion: Its Nature, Measurement, and Reduction Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2005; 65(3): 405 - 441. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. Peeters and F. Lievens Situational Judgment Tests and their Predictiveness of College Students' Success: The Influence of Faking Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2005; 65(1): 70 - 89. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. J. Zickar, R. E. Gibby, and C. Robie Uncovering Faking Samples in Applicant, Incumbent, and Experimental Data Sets: An Application of Mixed-Model Item Response Theory Organizational Research Methods, April 1, 2004; 7(2): 168 - 190. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. J. Ferrando and E. Chico Detecting Dissimulation in Personality Test Scores: A Comparison between Person-Fit Indices and Detection Scales Educational and Psychological Measurement, December 1, 2001; 61(6): 997 - 1012. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. M. Alliger and S. A. Dwight A Meta-Analytic Investigation of the Susceptibility of Integrity Tests to Faking and Coaching Educational and Psychological Measurement, February 1, 2000; 60(1): 59 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]